English Legal System Favors Grooming Gangsters over Outspoken Citizens

We already know that the authorities in England have deliberately avoided prosecuting members of the “grooming gangs” who horrifically exploit young girls, in part because identifying the trend of largely white victims and largely Pakistani perpetrators might have motivated accusations of racism and “Islamophobia.” But something equally sinister occurs in the rare cases that the authorities do pursue criminal charges: The abusers are regularly handed mild sentences, and they might not even serve them fully. A disturbing portrait of England emerges. The authorities neglect their responsibilities because of fears of racism accusations, thereby informally pardoning the pimps who exhibit a clear racial motive by targeting white girls — and yet, separately, the judiciary hands out prison time to individuals whose speech is deemed “racist.”

The recent outrage about the “grooming gangs,” more accurately dubbed “child-prostitution rings,” has brought attention to the stunning lack of prosecution. It is well documented that the authorities looked away when informed of the ghastly abuse — not because the officers lacked the resources to pursue justice but because they worried about facing allegations of “racism.” British journalist Andrew Norfolk released material from hundreds of documents that showed that the authorities in Rotherham knew that thousands of child-sexual-exploitation instances occurred locally each year but cared more about maintaining the impression of cross-cultural cohesion: “There are sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships. Great care will be taken in drafting . . . this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided,” read one document. The 2014 “Jay Report” confirmed Norfolk’s reporting, stating that “several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.” Such sentiment was shared by the broader public, too. Julie Bindel, a British feminist, had extensive evidence documenting the gangs, although she could not publish an article until 2007 because “many of the members of grooming gangs were of Pakistani origin” and “some editors feared an accusation of racism.” And so both government agents and swaths of civilians cared more about preserving the optics of multiculturalism than penalizing the pimps or aiding the young victims who have been mentally, physically, and emotionally abused.

About the Author

Abigail Anthony

Abigail Anthony is a staff writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Britain

We already know that the authorities in England have deliberately avoided prosecuting members of the “grooming gangs” who horrifically exploit young girls, in part because identifying the trend of largely white victims and largely Pakistani perpetrators might have motivated accusations of racism and “Islamophobia.” But something equally sinister occurs in the rare cases that the authorities do pursue criminal charges: The abusers are regularly handed mild sentences, and they might not even serve them fully. A disturbing portrait of England emerges. The authorities neglect their responsibilities because of fears of racism accusations, thereby informally pardoning the pimps who exhibit a clear racial motive by targeting white girls — and yet, separately, the judiciary hands out prison time to individuals whose speech is deemed “racist.”

The recent outrage about the “grooming gangs,” more accurately dubbed “child-prostitution rings,” has brought attention to the stunning lack of prosecution. It is well documented that the authorities looked away when informed of the ghastly abuse — not because the officers lacked the resources to pursue justice but because they worried about facing allegations of “racism.” British journalist Andrew Norfolk released material from hundreds of documents that showed that the authorities in Rotherham knew that thousands of child-sexual-exploitation instances occurred locally each year but cared more about maintaining the impression of cross-cultural cohesion: “There are sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships. Great care will be taken in drafting . . . this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided,” read one document. The 2014 “Jay Report” confirmed Norfolk’s reporting, stating that “several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.” Such sentiment was shared by the broader public, too. Julie Bindel, a British feminist, had extensive evidence documenting the gangs, although she could not publish an article until 2007 because “many of the members of grooming gangs were of Pakistani origin” and “some editors feared an accusation of racism.” And so both government agents and swaths of civilians cared more about preserving the optics of multiculturalism than penalizing the pimps or aiding the young victims who have been mentally, physically, and emotionally abused.